Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If you look at the evidence provided during the court case it's pretty obvious that's not true. Samsung created their own unique designs for everything, and only after benchmarking made changes to improve on them (because at the time samsung was much worse at design). If they 'copied', I would expect the earlier prototypes to look more like the iPhone, but the earlier prototypes look less like the iphone.

Also you must not know anything about the electronics industry if you find Samsung un-innovative. Aside from all innovative things that are plain to see in their devices, you also have more objective rankings like patent grants:

http://patentdocs.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451ca1469e201676730d...

Apple is not even on the list.



If they 'copied', I would expect the earlier prototypes to look more like the iPhone, but the earlier prototypes look less like the iphone.

Can you explain why what the earlier prototypes look like is relevant to whether they copied Apple in the final product?


Because the parent I was responding to talks about how much Samsung is innovating. The important thing is that their process is geared towards doing their own work and innovating on their own.

How much the end result looks like another product has no relevance in my mind because results and similarities could've been achieved independently, and the most important elements of the look and feel were, eg F700.


I don't think you understand what the word "copying" means.

It's certainly possible that similar end results can be achieved independently - that is what a court is determining, in this case.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: